Ex parte Tsunoda et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 15, 2002

08738469 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 15, 2002)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of
the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte EIZO TSUNODA, YUTAKA SHIMIZU, MASUJIRO SEKI, NAOMI
YOSHIIKE, KAZUO KATAI, and KATSUMI ONOZAWA
__________
Appeal No. 1999-2205
Application No. 08/738,469
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before GARRIS, WARREN, and LIEBERMAN, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection
of claims 3-6, 13 and 16 which are all of the claims remaining
in the application.
Appeal No. 1999-2205
Application No. 08/738,469
2
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for
extrusion coating a coating composition onto a length of
splice jointed webs via a coating head, wherein the coating
has a first (acceptable) coating thickness (formed as the web
is fed across the coating head) and a second (unacceptable)
coating thickness (formed as the coating head and the web are
moved out of and into contact with each other). The method
includes the steps of moving a scraping means into contact
with the web at a position downstream of the coating head to
remove entirely the coating having the second thickness from
the web and transfer the entire removed coating onto the
scraping means and scraping the removed coating from the
scraping means by a doctor blade in continuous contact with
the scraping means. Further details of this appealed subject
matter are set forth in representative independent claim 13
which reads as follows:
13. A method for extrusion coating a coating composition
onto a length of splice jointed webs through a slit in a
coating head by feeding a length of webs across the coating
head to form a coating having a first thickness on the webs,
each of said webs having a splice jointed at a trailing edge
of said webs, the method comprising the steps of:
feeding a length of webs along a web guide path defined
by first and second guide rolls, the first and second guide
Appeal No. 1999-2205
Application No. 08/738,469
3
rolls being positioned on a side of the web path which is
opposite to said coating head;
moving the coating head and a web apart from each other
before a splice joint passes across said coating head;
bringing said coating head and a subsequent web into
mutual contact after said splice joint has passed said coating
head, said coating head contacting the web at a position
between the first and second guide rolls, wherein a coating
having a second coating thickness which is greater than said
first coating thickness is formed on said web when said
coating head and webs are moved out of and into contact with
each other;
moving a scraping means into contact with the web at a
position downstream of said coating head and downstream of a
downstream guide roll of the first and second guide rolls, in
response to a movement of the coating head away from the web,
such the scraping means is brought into contact with the web
at substantially the same time that the coating head and web
are moved apart from each other to remove entirely said
coating having said second coating thickness from the web and
transfer said entire removed coating having said second
coating thickness onto said scraping means;
scraping the removed coating having said second coating
thickness from said scraping means by a doctor blade in
continuous contact with said scraping means;
detecting a variation in a flow rate of the coating
composition through the slit when the coating head is brought
back into contact with a further subsequent web; and
moving said scraping means out of contact with the web
when the detected variation in the flow rate of the coating
composition is within a range indicative of the forming of a
coating having said first coating thickness on the web.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Appeal No. 1999-2205
Application No. 08/738,469
4
Tanaka et al. (Tanaka) 4,332,840 Jun. 1,
1982
Takeda 4,537,801 Aug. 27,
1985
Fitzgerald et al. (Fitzgerald) 4,899,691 Feb. 13,
1990
Katsunori et al. (Japanese Kokai) 2-229572 Sep. 12,
1990
(Translation copy attached)
All of the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the Japanese reference in
view of Takeda and further in view of Tanaka alone or yet
further in view of Fitzgerald. On page 5 of the answer, the
examiner summarizes his position as follows:
In summary, it is noted that the JP 2-229572
reference teaches every aspect of the invention with
the exception of utilizing a scraper/doctor blade
combination to remove undesired coating from a web.
The Takeda et al. (4,537,801) reference is relied
upon for the teaching that it is well known in the
art to utilize a scraper roll (in contact with the
web) as a means to remove undesired coating as
opposed to a smoother as shown in the primary
reference (JP 2-229572). The Tanaka et al.
(4,332,840) reference is relied upon for the
teaching that it is well known in the art to utilize
a roller/doctor blade combination to remove
undesired coating even though the roller/doctor
blade combination is in contact with another roller
as opposed to a web. Therefore, the combination of
references would suggest [to] one skilled in the art
that a roller/doctor blade combination in contact
with a web can be utilized to remove undesired
Appeal No. 1999-2205
Application No. 08/738,469
5
coating with the expectation of achieving similar
success. The only difference between the instant
claims and the combination of reference is the
amount of undesired coating being removed. The
Examiner has taken the position that the combination
of references would be suggestive to one skilled in
the art that the entire coating may be removed with
the expectation of success. The amount of coating
removed is an arbitrary decision by a practitioner
in the art, a matter of design choice, and is not
deemed as a patentable distinction by the Examiner.
OPINION
The above noted rejection cannot be sustained.
The examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is not well
founded in a number of respects.
First, as correctly indicated by the appellants, the
applied references contain no teaching or suggestion for
replacing the smoother 8 (e.g., see Figure 1) used in the
Japanese reference process to regulate the coating thickness
with the roll 6/doctor blade combination used in the Figure 1
prior art process disclosed by Tanaka (i.e., to adjust coating
thickness on roll 5 which then transfers the coating onto web
4). Because the roll/doctor blade combination of Tanaka is
used in association with a roll rather than a web, there is no
basis for reasonably expecting that this combination would be
even capable of a successful use in association with the
Appeal No. 1999-2205
Application No. 08/738,469
6
Japanese reference web. Second, as also correctly argued
by the appellants, the applied references contain no teaching
or suggestion of entirely removing a second thickness coating
as required by the independent claim on appeal. Instead, the
smoother 8 of the Japanese reference, the coil bar 6 of Takeda
(e.g., see the prior art shown in Figures 1 and 2) and the
roll/doctor blade combination of Tanaka all function to
regulate the thickness of the coating rather than to remove
the coating. Concerning this claim feature, it is the
examiner’s previously quoted position that “[t]he amount of
coating removed is an arbitrary decision by a practitioner in
the art, a matter of design choice, and is not deemed a
patentable distinction by the Examiner.” We are constrained,
however, to regard this position as lacking discernible merit
since it is completely unsupported by the applied reference
evidence.
Further concerning this claim feature and the appellants’
corresponding arguments, the examiner contends that claim 13
“recites removing the ‘entire second coating thickness’ which
is simply the undesired portion of the coating not all the
coating” (answer, page 7; emphasis added). The appellants
Appeal No. 1999-2205
Application No. 08/738,469
7
rebut this contention on pages 2-4 of their reply brief with
the well documented proposition that the examiner has
misinterpreted the appealed independent claim. We agree. For
the reasons thoroughly set forth in the reply brief, this
claim must be interpreted as requiring the removal of the
entire coating having the second thickness from the web rather
than “simply the undesired portion of the coating not all the
coating” as urged by the examiner.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s section 103 rejection of all appealed claims as
being unpatentable over the Japanese reference in view of
Takeda and further in view of Tanaka alone or yet further in
view of Fitzgerald.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Bradley R. Garris )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Charles F. Warren ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
Appeal No. 1999-2205
Application No. 08/738,469
8
)
)
Paul Lieberman )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BRG:tdl
Appeal No. 1999-2205
Application No. 08/738,469
9
Oblon Spivak McClelland
Maier and Neustadt
1755 Jefferson Davis Hwy.
Fourth Floor
Arlington, VA 22202